Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ Geschichte (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello Piotrus, I should think that even if the National Lampoon is a satirical magazine, it is significant coverage. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Forget what I said, it's obviously a primary source....- My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Added a few things. A redirect (many targets can be considered) is also possible. Opposed to Deletion. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  22:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Besides the reviews already in the article, there's this, this, this, this and this which is enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't find independent sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Hkkingg (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Hkkingg Take a look at what @Somebodyidkfkdt found. It looks promising, although sadly the last three seem to be empty? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * TWL doesn't provide access to the last three unfortunately. There's also this, this, this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment Delete There are just two significant articles on this movie (that I can find). One is a full paragraph in TV Guide from 8/20/1994. The other is the LA Times article, which is genuinely substantial. This movie gets continued brief mentions in video guides, but almost nothing else. Hard to see this coming even close to meeting WP:NFILM Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oblivy Did you look at the sources found above? And are the sources you found oline and linkable for others to review? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus sorry I just did. The Entertainment Tonight article is lengthy, but I don't know if it counts towards the nationally known critics factor. The TV guide article is paywalled above but another TV guide article from the same date is here. The video guides are available at archive.org. Oblivy (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Oblivy Playing the devil's advocate (since I am the nom), I think that we have enough sources to show this meets GNG with SIGCOV, although I did not access your sources (but coverage in LA Time, which you call substantial, is pretty good). I'll ping User:Cunard in case he can locate it and quote it/link it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, LA times is source #3. Oblivy (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote to comment. There's little of substance except in that short period of 1994, but Cunard brought the sources. There's a common sense reading of GNG that could easily prevail here and I'd be fine with keeping the article. Oblivy (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The review notes: "Julie Brown casts a long, amusing shadow in Showtime's head-strongly dumb "National Lam- poon's Attack of the 5'2" Women," an umbrella title for two films. The kicky pair of satires within spoof two of the media's recent bete noir bad girls, skater-agitator Tonya Harding and impromptu surgeon Lorena Bobbitt, whose fictional counterparts are both played by Brown. Yes, nothing is sacred and all bets are off as "Attack" goes on the offensive, seizing the public personas of Harding and Bobbitt to transmit a picture of cheesy, pulp aspirations, where fame and lame are interchangeable and mass communications is the twisted funnel through which rattles the news. ... Ah, but an instant before this, the missus learns that her recently repaired hubby has been cheating again. Ouch! Sophomoric and crude, and way too long, "Attack" manages to play as a fun-dumb damning of the media-rama."  The review notes: "In this daffy double-header, Julie Brown spoofs two of last year's tabloid inamoratas. First, in an utterly unruly farce, she plays Tonya Hardly. The chain-smoking, asthma-atomizer-sucking, overweight skater is consumed with jealously for her competitor Nancy Cardigan (Khrystyne Haje). ... While this pair of infamous headline-generators present perfect targets for Brown's raucous, ribald satire, the fact is that both episodes seem a little dated already. Nothing goes stale faster than a juicy tabloid scandal. Grade: B+"</li> <li> The review notes: "In NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ATTACK OF THE 5'2" WOMEN (Showtime, Sunday, 8-9:30 p.m.), the very funny, very brazen star of Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful, the wicked 1991 parody of Madonna's Truth or Dare parody, sinks her fangs into two notorious women of recent headlines, figure skater Tonya Harding and spouse mutilator Lorena Bobbitt, and doesn't let go. As she did in Medusa, Brown ... sticks closely to the original text; in this case, her text is the chronology of Harding's bumbling plot to sideline her hated rival, Nancy Kerrigan, and Bobbitt's bumbling plan to sideline her hated husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... That Attack of the 5'2" Women flags is due to its length--90 minutes is a hell of a long way to go for two jokes--as well as to the datedness of its situations. There are no two recent, overreported media stories richer for comedy by and about women than those of Harding and Bobbitt, and, consequently, we've already seen and heard a heap. This quarry is too easy. In the name of comedy sisterhood, Julie Brown should lace up her bustier and work at a tougher assignment--say, whipping sketch comedy into shape. She TV: C+ At-tack of the 5'2" Women: B-. "</li> <li> The review ntoes: "For, though everyone would recognize John Wayne Bobbitt (or Juan Wayne, as his wife calls him here) as the funnier figure from his subsequent deadpan attempts to cash in on his celebrity, Brown hogs the comedy in this half with her Venezuelan accent and a macha swagger that doesn’t quite square with anyone’s worst picture of the real Lorena. As a targetless spoof, it’s, well, satirically challenged."</li> <li> The review notes: "Brown’s brilliant Madonna satire, “Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful,” and her campy novelty hit songs like “Homecoming Queen’s Got a Gun” point to her obvious skill. But “Attack of the 5’2″ Women” comes off no better than a latter-day National Lampoon, where the philosophy has descended to the point where anything is allowed, and it would be good if at least some of it were funny."</li> <li> The review notes: "The humor in "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" is broad - Ms. Harding's behind, for instance, is the target of many a joke. And the panting media, perfect prey, escape virtually unscathed. Ms. Brown plays both women as conniving, clueless and exceedingly tacky. The adjectives "gross" and "cheap" also come to mind - for example, when, in trying to attract "Juan Wayne," Ms. Babbitt licks a jukebox. Meanwhile, "Tonya Hardly" cuts her pizza with her skates, while her ditzy competitor "Nancy Cardigan" endorses pork with the line, "It's really neat." Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women isn't."</li> <li> The review notes: "This elevation of tackiness to an art form is what we get from Julie Brown in "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," a rousing 90- minute double feature of rude, crude and lewd that premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on Showtime. Brown portrays Harding (called Tonya Hardly here) and Bobbitt (Lenora Babbitt for these purposes) in a pair of satires that prove as side-splitting as they are over-the-top. ... "Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women" is undeniably sophomoric stuff. Yet it's often so funny you have trouble catching your breath."</li> <li> The review notes: "Under the umbrella title, "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," Brown presents "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Gave Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story." ... Her method is simple. Beginning with stories we all know, she takes each somewhere beyond the truth, twisting here, adding there, being careful to offend just about everybody at one time or another. And yes, both are very funny -- if you're not the sort to be easily outraged."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ''National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women'' to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard and other editors earlier in the discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.